Himalayan water supply gets an improved outlook

Glacial melt unlikely to cause water availability concerns this century.

Glaciers are very sensitive to changes in climate, making them clear (even visually striking) indicators of the recent warming trend. Apart from raising sea levels and threatening to turn the name of Glacier National Park in the US into a sad irony, the loss of glacial ice can also endanger water availability.

The seasonal melting of mountain glaciers (and snowpack) provides an important source of water in most places where they can be found. The Indus, Brahmaputra, and Ganges Rivers in India, and the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers in China, are particularly noteworthy examples of rivers with headwaters that are fed by glacial melt high in the Himalayas.

Those rivers supply water to a staggeringly large number of people, so the impact of climate change on Himalayan glaciers has understandably been the focus of study. As a glacier shrinks, the amount of meltwater it produces increases for a while before the diminishing volume of ice wins out, causing melt to dwindle.

A 2010 study, for example, showed reason for concern, indicating meltwater reductions within just a few decades—although increasing precipitation minimized the impact on the Ganges, Yellow, and Yangtze Rivers. Two of the researchers behind that study have attacked the question again with updated tools. This time they got a different answer, which could be good news for the many people who rely on those rivers.

The new study relies on the latest generation of climate models and a much more sophisticated model of the glaciers themselves. In order to model the glaciers with more confidence, they had to zoom in and focus on small areas with just a few glaciers. They picked two locations with different characteristics, one in the Indus River watershed, and one in the Ganges River watershed.

A number of climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (the ones utilized by IPCC reports) were used to simulate the rest of this century for a range of emissions scenarios. The simulated temperature and precipitation trends were then used to drive a model of the glaciers themselves, along with the rest of the local hydrological cycle—including precipitation runoff into streams or infiltration into groundwater. The primary focus was the amount of surface water flowing out of the model, which would eventually make its way into the Indus or Ganges Rivers. Would it dwindle in the near future?

Contrary to their earlier results, the researchers found no decrease in total water supplied to either of the rivers before the end of the 21st century. The glaciers retreated plenty (up to 60 percent of ice volume was lost by 2100), but the amount of glacial meltwater didn’t peak until roughly 2060 or so, after which it began a slow decline. Increasing precipitation, however, made up for some of that drop, preventing the total contribution to the rivers from decreasing.

The greater sophistication of their glacial model is partly responsible for the change in results, as it suggested the glaciers would not be melting as quickly, postponing the peak in meltwater. The other factor was the latest generation of climate models, which are projecting greater increases in precipitation for this region. Not only does that additional precipitation result in more water flowing downstream, it also slows glacial retreat in the same way that a pay raise bolsters an otherwise-troubled bank account. (In other words, it dumped more snow on the retreating glaciers.) The precipitation change also carries the biggest uncertainty, however, as the latest climate models are giving a wide range of projections in this region. Still, it appears that worrisome reductions in water availability are less likely to come to pass, at least for many years.

While the study only attempts to characterize the Indus and Ganges Rivers, there’s a good chance that its conclusions could extend to the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers as well. Although glacial melt provides a smaller portion of the rivers’ flow, precipitation is projected to increase over those glaciers, as well. Walter Immerzeel, a researcher at Utrecht University in the Netherlands involved in this study, told Ars that “a conclusive answer would require a similar modeling approach as [our study], as the runoff change also depends on intra-annual changes in precipitation and temperature and on changes in evapotranspiration.”

Increasing precipitation (especially monsoon rains) could present problems in other ways, but it looks like it will help avert water availability problems in a region where demand is increasing.

Wow still no comments. Kinda strange. I thought we for sure have gomer and his ilk chortling.

The glaciers are melting. If this study suggests that the process is slower at the highest elevations in the world (which I would expect) then it is good news for the region. It does not change the fact that glaciers worldwide continue to retreat, permafrost continues to melt, the polar ice cycle continues to diminish in size and thickness, etc. There is nothing to chortle about.

There are tens of millions of people everywhere, especially in South Asia. More than two billion between India and China. Efficient transportation has shrunk the size of the planet in half. We live longer, eat more, use more energy and produce more garbage than ever. We devastate every place we live in. We are creating dead zones in the oceans the size of countries.

We know what cancer does to our bodies. Why is it so difficult to see that we're doing the same to the planet ?

There are tens of millions of people everywhere, especially in South Asia. More than two billion between India and China. Efficient transportation has shrunk the size of the planet in half. We live longer, eat more, use more energy and produce more garbage than ever. We devastate every place we live in. We are creating dead zones in the oceans the size of countries.

We know what cancer does to our bodies. Why is it so difficult to see that we're doing the same to the planet ?

There are tens of millions of people everywhere, especially in South Asia. More than two billion between India and China. Efficient transportation has shrunk the size of the planet in half. We live longer, eat more, use more energy and produce more garbage than ever. We devastate every place we live in. We are creating dead zones in the oceans the size of countries.

We know what cancer does to our bodies. Why is it so difficult to see that we're doing the same to the planet ?

Wow still no comments. Kinda strange. I thought we for sure have gomer and his ilk chortling.

The glaciers are melting. If this study suggests that the process is slower at the highest elevations in the world (which I would expect) then it is good news for the region. It does not change the fact that glaciers worldwide continue to retreat, permafrost continues to melt, the polar ice cycle continues to diminish in size and thickness, etc. There is nothing to chortle about.

If you have been following ars for a while you would recognize immediately what I am referring to and also that I am not laughing. Whilst good news there is still no action from our elected officials regarding carbon emissions, meanwhile the CO2 levels continue to climb at unprecedented rates.

Wow still no comments. Kinda strange. I thought we for sure have gomer and his ilk chortling.

Ahh... I have a fan. How cute! Now lets see if you have enough working brain cells to do more than simply launching insults. You know... like actually countering the arguments of someone you don't agree with in a civil and thoughtful manner? I have faith in you!

Wow still no comments. Kinda strange. I thought we for sure have gomer and his ilk chortling.

The glaciers are melting. If this study suggests that the process is slower at the highest elevations in the world (which I would expect) then it is good news for the region. It does not change the fact that glaciers worldwide continue to retreat, permafrost continues to melt, the polar ice cycle continues to diminish in size and thickness, etc. There is nothing to chortle about.

You do get that the climate changes all the time and that glaciers grow and retreat naturally right? It's pretty silly to expect things to never change. It has been warmer than it is today within recorded human history and it has been cooler as well. Plus there's yet another scientific paper which has found no evidence of AGW. This means they found no real scientific evidence that supports the view that human activity is to blame for the warming that was observed and the now cooling trend. Here's a link to the paper if you honestly are open to additional info which contradicts your own view. It makes more sense to plan our agriculture with these changes in mind and not pushing our politicians to act on something many scientists aren't even sure we have any control over.

Wow still no comments. Kinda strange. I thought we for sure have gomer and his ilk chortling.

The glaciers are melting. If this study suggests that the process is slower at the highest elevations in the world (which I would expect) then it is good news for the region. It does not change the fact that glaciers worldwide continue to retreat, permafrost continues to melt, the polar ice cycle continues to diminish in size and thickness, etc. There is nothing to chortle about.

If you have been following ars for a while you would recognize immediately what I am referring to and also that I am not laughing. Whilst good news there is still no action from our elected officials regarding carbon emissions, meanwhile the CO2 levels continue to climb at unprecedented rates.

You are ignoring some facts here. Antarctic sea ice extent is break all kinds of records. Sea ice in general this year has been above average all year so far. Plus this summer has been one of the coldest for the arctic. On average the high arctic has approx 90 days above freezing. This year it's less than half that.

Wow still no comments. Kinda strange. I thought we for sure have gomer and his ilk chortling.

The glaciers are melting. If this study suggests that the process is slower at the highest elevations in the world (which I would expect) then it is good news for the region. It does not change the fact that glaciers worldwide continue to retreat, permafrost continues to melt, the polar ice cycle continues to diminish in size and thickness, etc. There is nothing to chortle about.

You do get that the climate changes all the time and that glaciers grow and retreat naturally right? It's pretty silly to expect things to never change. It has been warmer than it is today within recorded human history and it has been cooler as well. Plus there's yet another scientific paper which has found no evidence of AGW. This means they found no real scientific evidence that supports the view that human activity is to blame for the warming that was observed and the now cooling trend. Here's a link to the paper if you honestly are open to additional info which contradicts your own view. It makes more sense to plan our agriculture with these changes in mind and not pushing our politicians to act on something many scientists aren't even sure we have any control over.

New evidence shows that the glaciers are not only melting, but FLOODing local towns. The rate of glacier melt is accelerating. Scientists have consistently underestimated the rate of global warming climate change.

A look at world water supplies shows a global drop in lake and stream volume by 33%. Any indication that global warming isn't happening rapidly, must have an inherent flaw.

--Warm temperature trends continue near Earth’s surface: Four major independent datasets show 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record, ranking either 8th or 9th, depending upon the dataset used. The United States and Argentina had their warmest year on record.

--The Arctic continues to warm; sea ice extent reaches record low: The Arctic continued to warm at about twice the rate compared with lower latitudes. Minimum Arctic sea ice extent in September and Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in June each reached new record lows. Arctic sea ice minimum extent (1.32 million square miles, September 16) was the lowest of the satellite era. This is 18 percent lower than the previous record low extent of 1.61 million square miles that occurred in 2007 and 54 percent lower than the record high minimum ice extent of 2.90 million square miles that occurred in 1980. The temperature of permafrost, or permanently frozen land, reached record-high values in northernmost Alaska. A new melt extent record occurred July 11–12 on the Greenland ice sheet when 97 percent of the ice sheet showed some form of melt, four times greater than the average melt this time of year.

--Antarctica sea ice extent reaches record high: The Antarctic maximum sea ice extent reached a record high of 7.51 million square miles on September 26. This is 0.5 percent higher than the previous record high extent of 7.47 million square miles that occurred in 2006 and seven percent higher than the record low maximum sea ice extent of 6.96 million square miles that occurred in 1986.

--Sea surface temperatures increase: Four independent datasets indicate that the globally averaged sea surface temperature for 2012 was among the 11 warmest on record. After a 30-year period from 1970 to 1999 of rising global sea surface temperatures, the period 2000–2012 exhibited little trend. Part of this difference is linked to the prevalence of La Niña-like conditions during the 21st century, which typically lead to lower global sea surface temperatures.

--Ocean heat content remains near record levels: Heat content in the upper 2,300 feet, or a little less than one-half mile, of the ocean remained near record high levels in 2012. Overall increases from 2011 to 2012 occurred between depths of 2,300 to 6,600 feet and even in the deep ocean.

--Sea level reaches record high: Following sharp decreases in global sea level in the first half of 2011 that were linked to the effects of La Niña, sea levels rebounded to reach record highs in 2012. Globally, sea level has been increasing at an average rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year over the past two decades.

Wow still no comments. Kinda strange. I thought we for sure have gomer and his ilk chortling.

The glaciers are melting. If this study suggests that the process is slower at the highest elevations in the world (which I would expect) then it is good news for the region. It does not change the fact that glaciers worldwide continue to retreat, permafrost continues to melt, the polar ice cycle continues to diminish in size and thickness, etc. There is nothing to chortle about.

You do get that the climate changes all the time and that glaciers grow and retreat naturally right? It's pretty silly to expect things to never change. It has been warmer than it is today within recorded human history and it has been cooler as well. Plus there's yet another scientific paper which has found no evidence of AGW. This means they found no real scientific evidence that supports the view that human activity is to blame for the warming that was observed and the now cooling trend. Here's a link to the paper if you honestly are open to additional info which contradicts your own view. It makes more sense to plan our agriculture with these changes in mind and not pushing our politicians to act on something many scientists aren't even sure we have any control over.

Groundbreaking, another tropical hotspot paper by Christy published in-- surprise!-- E&E. Check out the other wonderful papers in that issue that couldn't get published anywhere else: http://multi-science.metapress.com/cont ... 0ed35&pi=0It's their second issue this year!

Groundbreaking, another tropical hotspot paper by Christy published in-- surprise!-- E&E. Check out the other wonderful papers in that issue that couldn't get published anywhere else: http://multi-science.metapress.com/cont ... 0ed35&pi=0It's their second issue this year!

Even after being debunked for years, Scafetta is still pushing his neo-Astrological explanation for recent climate change. He believes that Earth's climate is significantly affected not just by our own orbital wobbles around the sun, but also by the gravitational influence of OTHER planets going around the sun, like Jupiter. He has absolutely no plausible mechanism for this supposed interaction of gravity and climate, whereas mainstream science has long suspect that Earth's orbital variations result in changes in insolation (energy received from the sun) that can trigger changes in glaciation events (what most people think of as Ice Ages) over very, very long timescales (hundreds of thousands of years). Energy & Environment routinely publishes his baseless, curve-fitting exercises. Why? Probably because they are not being sufficiently peer-reviewed by people who know what they're doing and can spot the detrimental flaws in his work. This is not surprisingly, since E&E also published a paper claiming that the sun was actually made out of iron. Apparently their editor's position is that the journal should be a clearinghouse for unpopular ideas regardless of their scientific merit. This makes it totally unreliable as a source of rigorous, peer-reviewed science. Just a heads-up in case anybody in these threads runs across an E&E citation in the future.

Groundbreaking, another tropical hotspot paper by Christy published in-- surprise!-- E&E. Check out the other wonderful papers in that issue that couldn't get published anywhere else: http://multi-science.metapress.com/cont ... 0ed35&pi=0It's their second issue this year!

Even after being debunked for years, Scafetta is still pushing his neo-Astrological explanation for recent climate change. He believes that Earth's climate is significantly affected not just by our own orbital wobbles around the sun, but also by the gravitational influence of OTHER planets going around the sun, like Jupiter. He has absolutely no plausible mechanism for this supposed interaction of gravity and climate, whereas mainstream science has long suspect that Earth's orbital variations result in changes in insolation (energy received from the sun) that can trigger changes in glaciation events (what most people think of as Ice Ages) over very, very long timescales (hundreds of thousands of years). Energy & Environment routinely publishes his baseless, curve-fitting exercises. Why? Probably because they are not being sufficiently peer-reviewed by people who know what they're doing and can spot the detrimental flaws in his work. This is not surprisingly, since E&E also published a paper claiming that the sun was actually made out of iron. Apparently their editor's position is that the journal should be a clearinghouse for unpopular ideas regardless of their scientific merit. This makes it totally unreliable as a source of rigorous, peer-reviewed science. Just a heads-up in case anybody in these threads runs across an E&E citation in the future.

Wow still no comments. Kinda strange. I thought we for sure have gomer and his ilk chortling.

The glaciers are melting. If this study suggests that the process is slower at the highest elevations in the world (which I would expect) then it is good news for the region. It does not change the fact that glaciers worldwide continue to retreat, permafrost continues to melt, the polar ice cycle continues to diminish in size and thickness, etc. There is nothing to chortle about.

If you have been following ars for a while you would recognize immediately what I am referring to and also that I am not laughing. Whilst good news there is still no action from our elected officials regarding carbon emissions, meanwhile the CO2 levels continue to climb at unprecedented rates.

Presuming you're referring to American "elected officials", what action do you think they could take to change the fact that "CO2 levels continue to climb at unprecedented rates"? Hint: there is none other than possibly starting a world war - which likely would have other bad consequences.

I guess you'd better hope Kotlyakov is right:

Quote:

‘The period of low solar activity could start between 2030 and 2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century.’

Vladimir Kotlyakov, from the Russian Academy of Sciences, said: ‘There are no grounds to claim that global warming will continue till the end of this century.'

‘Climate moves in natural cycles of warmer and colder, as well as drier and more humid times.'

‘Early signs of cooling are already there and the trend may pick up in coming years.'

‘Human activity and industrial discharges do have a great impact on the environment, but forces of nature are far more powerful.’

Kotlyakov's resume may be found here. He's an expert on glaciology and paleoclimatology.

He doesn't quite have his solar facts right, low solar activity (sunspot activity) has already started, and will likely be almost nonexistent by the early '20s.

That article does show one common failing of the news media with regard to science - the solar cycle is not always eleven years, and in fact the last one (23) was a good bit longer. The weaker they are, the longer they are, so it will likely be 2027 or even later before the next solar maximum.

You're right, maybe I should post something other than denialist-bashing:

If this projection turns out to be true, it's excellent news. Untold human suffering and economic damage from severe water shortages may not come as quickly as we had reason to believe before. Let's hope that better and more sophisticated methods confirm the finding.

Wow still no comments. Kinda strange. I thought we for sure have gomer and his ilk chortling.

The glaciers are melting. If this study suggests that the process is slower at the highest elevations in the world (which I would expect) then it is good news for the region. It does not change the fact that glaciers worldwide continue to retreat, permafrost continues to melt, the polar ice cycle continues to diminish in size and thickness, etc. There is nothing to chortle about.

You do get that the climate changes all the time and that glaciers grow and retreat naturally right? It's pretty silly to expect things to never change. It has been warmer than it is today within recorded human history and it has been cooler as well. Plus there's yet another scientific paper which has found no evidence of AGW. This means they found no real scientific evidence that supports the view that human activity is to blame for the warming that was observed and the now cooling trend. Here's a link to the paper if you honestly are open to additional info which contradicts your own view. It makes more sense to plan our agriculture with these changes in mind and not pushing our politicians to act on something many scientists aren't even sure we have any control over.

"no evidence of AGW"... You're on the wrong blog. Glen Beck is somewhere else.We can completely discount anything you say now, because your in fairly tail land.Go back to high school and get your GED.

This is sad. I offer a valid argument and all you can do is try to belittle and insult. what's really sad is that in your small mind you most likely believe you formed a valid counter to my argument. The public education system has failed you...

Wow still no comments. Kinda strange. I thought we for sure have gomer and his ilk chortling.

The glaciers are melting. If this study suggests that the process is slower at the highest elevations in the world (which I would expect) then it is good news for the region. It does not change the fact that glaciers worldwide continue to retreat, permafrost continues to melt, the polar ice cycle continues to diminish in size and thickness, etc. There is nothing to chortle about.

You do get that the climate changes all the time and that glaciers grow and retreat naturally right? It's pretty silly to expect things to never change. It has been warmer than it is today within recorded human history and it has been cooler as well. Plus there's yet another scientific paper which has found no evidence of AGW. This means they found no real scientific evidence that supports the view that human activity is to blame for the warming that was observed and the now cooling trend. Here's a link to the paper if you honestly are open to additional info which contradicts your own view. It makes more sense to plan our agriculture with these changes in mind and not pushing our politicians to act on something many scientists aren't even sure we have any control over.

Groundbreaking, another tropical hotspot paper by Christy published in-- surprise!-- E&E. Check out the other wonderful papers in that issue that couldn't get published anywhere else: http://multi-science.metapress.com/cont ... 0ed35&pi=0It's their second issue this year!

Please share with us a peer reviewed paper which shows that human activity, w/o any doubt what so ever, is a major driver of the warming we had. No such paper exists. the most experts will say is we have SOME impact but none who are taken seriously will say Human activity has a major impact. Not a one.

Please share with us a peer reviewed paper which shows that human activity, w/o any doubt what so ever, is a major driver of the warming we had. No such paper exists. the most experts will say is we have SOME impact but none who are taken seriously will say Human activity has a major impact. Not a one.

This is sad. I offer a valid argument and all you can do is try to belittle and insult. what's really sad is that in your small mind you most likely believe you formed a valid counter to my argument. The public education system has failed you...

I'll just sit here holding my breath until you reply to Wheel's post which DID address the argument you put forward...

Wow still no comments. Kinda strange. I thought we for sure have gomer and his ilk chortling.

The glaciers are melting. If this study suggests that the process is slower at the highest elevations in the world (which I would expect) then it is good news for the region. It does not change the fact that glaciers worldwide continue to retreat, permafrost continues to melt, the polar ice cycle continues to diminish in size and thickness, etc. There is nothing to chortle about.

You do get that the climate changes all the time and that glaciers grow and retreat naturally right? It's pretty silly to expect things to never change. It has been warmer than it is today within recorded human history and it has been cooler as well. Plus there's yet another scientific paper which has found no evidence of AGW. This means they found no real scientific evidence that supports the view that human activity is to blame for the warming that was observed and the now cooling trend. Here's a link to the paper if you honestly are open to additional info which contradicts your own view. It makes more sense to plan our agriculture with these changes in mind and not pushing our politicians to act on something many scientists aren't even sure we have any control over.

Groundbreaking, another tropical hotspot paper by Christy published in-- surprise!-- E&E. Check out the other wonderful papers in that issue that couldn't get published anywhere else: http://multi-science.metapress.com/cont ... 0ed35&pi=0It's their second issue this year!

Please share with us a peer reviewed paper which shows that human activity, w/o any doubt what so ever, is a major driver of the warming we had. No such paper exists. the most experts will say is we have SOME impact but none who are taken seriously will say Human activity has a major impact. Not a one.

MODERATION: Ars is not a platform for publicizing false claims. g0m3r619 has made this claim several times in the past, and people responded by providing information that it isn't true. He repeated it several times and was officially warned that doing so after being shown evidence was just trolling. He's decided to repeat it again, and thereby earned himself a ban.

John, while I appreciate the reasoning for the ban, his rants are actually usually pretty educational to me -- due to all the responses that are kindly trying to reset his programming. Additionally, he's not too inflammatory and insulting from what I've seen, so I say let him keep shining the light on how wrong these "journals" are.

In the same vein, I often like listening to "talk-radio" (well, "like" may be too strong a word) while driving. It gives me a perspective on what other people are thinking and how they are justifying those thoughts.

I say that as long as the thoughts are presented in a relatively peaceful manner (this is the internet) let them be presented, and let others counter them -- again, peacefully.

...and yet arctic ice coverage is currently the fourth lowest on record (after 2012, 2011 and 2007).

...and running over 1 million square kilometers higher than last year at this point.

so there's nothing to worry about because things aren't quite as bad as they were in the absolute worst year on record? clutching at straws much?

the current extent is comparable to the minimum extents we were seeing barely a decade ago -- and we've got a month or more of melting still to go. last year (2012) ended with the lowest sea ice extent on record by a wide margin, beating the previous record (2007) by 750000 km^2. that in turn beat the previous record (2005) by 1.2 million km^2, which beat the previous record (2002) by 300000 km^2, which in turn.....

you sound like a millionaire who has squandered his entire fortune on the horses, yet who insists everything is rainbows because he has £20 more in his pocket now than he did this morning.

Quote:

It'll be interesting to see where things stand around mid-September, usually the peak of melt season, and only about a month away.

i don't follow these things all that carefully, but at a guess: something like 2010 or 2008, so in the region of 4.6m km^2. despite being a fairly average year, it will nevertheless be of the order of 2sd below the long-term average -- a once-in-20-years event, just like every one of the 6 previous years. that will still be lower than every year prior to 2007 -- by at least a million km^2.

but when it doesn't beat 2012, the usual denialist clownshow will crow about a recovery and how it means we'll be deep in an ice age any moment now, just you wait and see. in a few years time we'll see the 2012 record smashed.

But because it's not quite as bad as last year's record low, I can already hear the cries of "RECOVERY! RECOVERY!" from the denialist echo chamber. Extent is one way to measure the health of arctic sea ice. Another is area, which still shows us being better off than last year for the time being. Extent measures coverage by drawing a grid and counting all cells with at least 15% sea ice coverage. Area is more absolute. Another measure is ice volume, i.e. the actual amount of ice there is and not just how much of the sea surface is covered by ice. By that measure, we're above 2012 levels but below 2007 levels. 2007 was the record holder for least ice extent until 2012 happened. There is less actual ice up north this year than when the previous record low for extent was set. Even if we don't set a new record low for extent or area this year, we will still have lost arctic sea ice relative to just 6 years ago. If you have a lesser volume of ice spread out over the same or greater area, what you have is thinner ice. Thinner ice melts more readily and does not accumulate multi-year thickness as well as thicker, more robust ice. It's also easier to lose chunks of it to things like arctic cyclones and changes in the currents. We are on a trajectory of both less and thinner ice; this year's conditions don't change that story. We don't have to set a new record every year for this to be true.

Even if our volume for the year was significantly higher, it's unlikely to indicate an actual recovery of the arctic sea ice to past glory. Just as with surface temperature records, sea ice measurements are noisy and one year (or even a handful) does not establish a trend. The real trend is visible in all three metrics over several decades:ExtentAreaVolumeGoing down.

Please share with us a peer reviewed paper which shows that human activity, w/o any doubt what so ever, is a major driver of the warming we had. No such paper exists. the most experts will say is we have SOME impact but none who are taken seriously will say Human activity has a major impact. Not a one.

MODERATION: Ars is not a platform for publicizing false claims. g0m3r619 has made this claim several times in the past, and people responded by providing information that it isn't true. He repeated it several times and was officially warned that doing so after being shown evidence was just trolling. He's decided to repeat it again, and thereby earned himself a ban.

Awww man... I was looking forward to pseudo defending him by stating that no scientist would ever publish a peer reviewed article of any kind that had no doubt.

After all a number with no error is essentially garbage and therefor he was asking for the impossible.

Please share with us a peer reviewed paper which shows that human activity, w/o any doubt what so ever, is a major driver of the warming we had. No such paper exists. the most experts will say is we have SOME impact but none who are taken seriously will say Human activity has a major impact. Not a one.

MODERATION: Ars is not a platform for publicizing false claims. g0m3r619 has made this claim several times in the past, and people responded by providing information that it isn't true. He repeated it several times and was officially warned that doing so after being shown evidence was just trolling. He's decided to repeat it again, and thereby earned himself a ban.

I don't consider his posts overtly offensive (except maybe to my sense of logic and reason). I am reluctant to stifle debate.

But continue to post lies when you know them to be untrue is trolling. I would have no patience with someone posting fake moon landing conspiracy trash.

Please share with us a peer reviewed paper which shows that human activity, w/o any doubt what so ever, is a major driver of the warming we had. No such paper exists. the most experts will say is we have SOME impact but none who are taken seriously will say Human activity has a major impact. Not a one.

MODERATION: Ars is not a platform for publicizing false claims. g0m3r619 has made this claim several times in the past, and people responded by providing information that it isn't true. He repeated it several times and was officially warned that doing so after being shown evidence was just trolling. He's decided to repeat it again, and thereby earned himself a ban.

Aw...Can we put him aboard the next probe to Venus instead?

That should help him a lot with his comprehension of greenhouse effect mechanisms.A ban is way less useful in comparison.